G.R. No. 154115. November 29, 2005.
PHILIP S. YU, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division, and VIVECA LIM YU, Respondents.

FACTS

Viveca Lim Yu filed an action for legal separation and dissolution of conjugal partnership against her husband, Philip S. Yu, on grounds of marital infidelity and physical abuse. During trial, Viveca moved for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to officers of Insular Life Assurance Co. to compel production of an insurance policy and application for a person she suspected to be Philip’s illegitimate child. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion, ruling the documents inadmissible. The RTC based its denial on Insurance Commission Circular Letter No. 11-2000 on confidentiality and on laws prohibiting the unauthorized identification of parents of an illegitimate child.
Viveca filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA granted the petition, setting aside the RTC’s order. It held that the RTC’s declaration of inadmissibility was premature, as the documents were merely being sought for production, not yet formally offered as evidence. The CA also noted the Insurance Commissioner’s opinion that the circular was not a legal impediment to court orders.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for subpoena and preemptively declaring the insurance documents inadmissible.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied Philip’s petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A trial court’s discretion to admit or exclude evidence is exercised only upon the formal offer of evidence. The RTC’s preemptive ruling on admissibility during the discovery stage, before the documents were even presented or offered, was a denial of Viveca’s right to a full opportunity to present her case. This premature exclusion of potential evidence curtailed the development of proof.
The Court clarified that a petition for certiorari was the proper remedy, as the error was jurisdictional. The RTC overstepped its authority by definitively ruling on admissibility at the wrong procedural stage. The tender of excluded evidence made later by Viveca did not moot the certiorari petition, as it was a consequence of the RTC’s erroneous order and did not provide an adequate remedy for the premature exclusion. The insurance documents were potentially relevant to prove infidelity and financial capacity in the legal separation case, and their exclusion before examination was improper.